Again, why should recidivism matter when it comes to voting?
We let minors vote as soon as they attain their majority, a purely chronological calculation. There are no tests to see if a person has attained civic maturity.
So you’re all for testing all citizens before they’re allowed to vote, as well? Age is certainly not a good indicator for civic maturity.
I get the feeling you’re dodging the question. I’ll repeat it for you here- Why shouldn’t ex-felons and/or convicted felons out on parole get to vote?
Because they have nothing to do with voting or a person’s ability to cast a thoughtful or irresponsible vote. It’s apples and oranges. A person’s behavior, while legal, may be completely outrageous and unpalatable to us as a nation (I’m sure Fred Phelps is allowed to vote if he hasn’t done felony time). The idea is that it is a citizen’s right to vote in order to have a voice in how their nation conducts itself. You don’t have to like it, but they are no less a citizen of the United States than you are.
He also used the term “expunged” which IS as if the crime never occurred. Neither one has anything to do with voting responsibly. Or irresponsibly, as does the majority of the nation.
[QUOTE=Lightnin’
We let minors vote as soon as they attain their majority, a purely chronological calculation. There are no tests to see if a person has attained civic maturity.
*[/QUOTE]
In Illinois, you cannot graduate high school without passing what was called the Senior Social Science Survey, back in my high school days, 35 years ago. It is a requirement of all high school graduates. The state doesn’t require you pass it in order to vote, but they do feel it is important enough to require a certain understanding of the system before they catapult our youth into adult life. The fact is, as Lightnin’ said, there is no law that says you need any particular skill or understanding of the system in order to vote.
I mean, I have full rights to speech, assembly, the press, and firearms ownership. I am free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Now a convicted felon loses his right to firearms ownership, has his rights to speech, the press and especially assembly severely curtailed for a time, and has to submit to searches and seizures that a free citizen may not, both during incarceration and in the parole and probationary period.
Clearly, the constitutional rights of free citizens and those under the supervision of the state differ. The sentence of a court of law matters here. And one of the things a state may legislate, and a court may sentence, is the loss of voting rights upon sentence for a felony. Again, this is constitutional as well, as I noted above.
Now, you don’t have to like it either, but these are the facts as well, aren’t they?
They are facts of law; an illogical law that serves no one. They are not facts of “right” or “wrong.” It is an arbitrary infringement of rights based on nothing. The voting thing and the gun ownership thing are the result of heavy-handed lawmakers who think dramatic gesturing is more important than the very rights they chose to work toward protecting.
Sorry, it doesn’t seem so arbitrary to me. As I said before, it makes the distinction between felons and misdemeanor criminals, who do not have their rights interfered with so severely.
People with DUIs should not be allowed to vote. If they drink they certainly can not be trusted to give a thoughtful vote. Reckless drivers are the same . They show great immaturity and should not qualify. Grades are important. People with under c average are too stupid to vote.
The whole idea is stupid. The concept is that if you do your time you can be accepted back into society . The real objection is they might not vote for the party in power. They have that right. To deny them the right to vote is a denial of the justice system. We are saying once a criminal always a criminal. You are less than citizen and a lesser person. Oh yeah, we want you to accept all the other laws .But we will determine what rights you are allowed to have.
The firearms and search-and-seizure loss of freedoms have an obvious and direct connection in the case of violent and/or drug felons.
Maybe you can enlighten me on how those on parole or probation have their rights to free speech restricted. That’s a new one to me.
But AFAICT, the essence of your argument is, “This is where and how I feel the line should be drawn, because this is where and how I feel the line should be drawn.” Can’t argue with that.
You do know that there is a difference between felony DUI and misdemeanor DUI, and felony and misdemeanor reckless driving, don’t you?
For people whose behavior crosses into felony territory, they absolutely can be punished in this way. And I believe, personally, that until they are rehabilitated that it is a good idea.
I really don’t care who these ex-felons vote for. I do think, though, that a great number of those looking to open up the franchise to felons regardless of the state of their rehabilitation are doing so cynically expecting that they will indeed vote a certain way.
Do you believe that a person cannot change their life? Do you believe that all non-convicts always place a vote that is in the best interest of the country? Do you believe that all aspects of a criminal’s being are bad? Do you believe that all shoplifters should forfeit their driver’s license?
In the case of incarcerated prisoners, which was my argument there, inmate mail, telephone calls, visitors, television, and reading material is severely controlled by the prison. This can only be described as a severe contraction of an inmate’s First Amendment rights.
Even after or instead of the incarceration period, during a parole or probation period, the First Amendment rights of an individual can be curtailed by limiting his right of assembly. Again, since this restriction is placed after deliberation by a court, there is no constitutional question involved.
Well, here there is a three year waiting period after that period for non-violent offenses, during which the applicant must have a clean record. As I said before, I’m fine with that.
If a state wants to go with a different law, it’s their call.
Democracy in the United States actually is not about “giving the people what they want.” In fact the Constitution is structured in such a way as to prevent the people from being able to get precisely what they want, in several different ways. The underlying reason for this is, the Founding Fathers recognized that sometimes the majority gets a bad idea, or an idea that is not good for society.
If for example a government held a vote on abolishing all taxes, it would get a surprising number of votes in the affirmative, because many people just view taxes as a sieve on their income and nothing more. That’s why government is consolidated in the hands of the few, and why elections for various offices are staggered. So that public sentiment is not necessarily represented exactly, but is tempered and refined. We also have an unelected SCOTUS to keep particularly outlandish types of legislation (often born out of public sentiment) from standing.
With that in mind, it is not only good that we refine the will of the public through representation, but also that we restrict voting to those who have a vested interest in society. Criminals have acted out against society and imo have shown that they do not have a responsibly vested interest in said society. That’s why they shouldn’t be allowed to vote. The electorate should be reasonably restricted in such a manner as to get the best decisions. So people who are obviously very bad at making decisions like felons shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Nor should felons, or the young.
It’s long been my opinion that property qualifications or income qualifications are also incredibly important for voting. I do not think there should be property qualifications to vote in most elections. But I think there should be a property qualification to vote on any matter that affects property taxes. To me it is uniquely bad policy that the people who do not pay property taxes, yet reap all the benefits of property taxes in a community, get to vote to raise them.
It has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that disallowing prisoners to vote is a system of unjust disenfranchisement. I think you can make an excellent case for people to have the right to vote after they’re released from prison though.
What do you mean by just, do you mean people should be treated fairly, or that we should treat everyone equally? Because I think it’s perfectly fair for prisoners to be denied the vote. They broke the rules of society and by locking them away we already recognize that they are not fit to participate in normal society.